That is a different statement. It’s saying abusers can be more dangerous with a weapon. It does not follow that people who own a weapon are somehow more likely to be an abuser.
To make that argument it would need to say something about what percentage of gun owners commit abuse or some kind violent crime.
You can find higher rates of domestic violence among cops for instance so maybe you could argue cops are more likely to be abusers.
Violence was a thing before guns existed. If I got stabbed I’m not going to think, “Thank goodness I wasn’t shot.” I suppose I’ll have plenty of to think about it while waiting for the cops to show up though.
Cherry picking and a lack of controling for confounding variables is an issue when people try to make the claim you did. There is also a lot more going on than just gun laws. When normal people don’t benefit from our GDP it really isn’t a good benchmark for comparable countries. When people have a lack opportunities or lack social programs there will probably be some social problems.
A lot of domestic violence involving a gun doesn’t mean that most gun owners are abusive.
I suppose the guns hypnotized him and made him do it? He did it because he was a piece of shit.
If he regularly shot pictures of women or something sure but owning a lot of guns or buying ammo in bulk isn’t really any indication of domestic violence. The son even said there wasn’t a history of violence. It seems like the heavy drinking or arguments have more correlation than anything.
Media outlets often cite things like how many guns someone has to freak out people who don’t know about guns. All the dude needed to fuck up was a single handgun and a single bullet. If he was drunk he shouldn’t have even been carrying. And being drunk isn’t really a good argument for why someone got violent.
Many cultures have issues with depression or suicide. Including ones with a focus on collectivism.
Work-life balance could be a part of the issue. That can be an issue for individualism or collectism. Although I feel like with individualism it’s easier to set your own standard.
The affordability of life is a problem as well but money being a thing won’t go away anytime soon.
One aspect you might have to separate is the gun control advocates who just want to cite another reason for X or Y policies. Those people aren’t necessarily advocating for mental health.
As an example take waiting periods. They might do something for first time buyers but the policy doesn’t really make sense for the people who already have a safe full of guns to pick from. I don’t hear those people talk about programs like “hold my guns” either.
The change doesn’t really seem that great and there are years missing.
Also “Gun laws should be stricter” is too vague for the range of policies involved. When a gun control advocate says that they might mean bans. Someone else might be talking about opening up the NICS or want to improve the background checks somehow. There are also a lot of people who don’t actually know the existing laws and want “stricter laws” we already have.
The rule in effect is rather narrow and doesn’t actually ban home manufacturing. All the elements of a kit are still accessible and legal.
The only difference is that all the parts to finish the controlled part can’t be sold together. So like you could by the 80% from one shop online and the jig from a different shop online. All the other parts wouldn’t be affected in general, maybe an issue if sold with the 80%. And there are also other ways to do home manufacturing that would be completely unaffected but the rule.
Also the case isn’t done. The order is a temporary stay where the court is asking the ATF lawyers to explain things.
Ideally we should find a replacement for that horseshoe crab blood or perhaps a way to raise them in captivity. Maybe someone could come up with something to give the crabs to offset the damage caused by taking the blood. The issue might not even be primarily due to the blood with everything else happening climate change wise.
There might be ways to improve things for the birds but animals with super specific niches just kinda run the risk of becoming extinct. I feel similar about Pandas and Koalas.
@crow Not really sure how someone faking it would expect things to work out. Someone could decide they could get a bunch of clout and followers by faking it. But at some point they get shown to be a fraud then they lose any following they had. Are the people who claim to have discovered something notable before this or could they just be riding a wave for a min for a quick buck? I guess there have been cases in more proper scientific circles of faked results.
Reporting on it is kinda whatever as that’s kinda just talking about what someone else claimed.
Another possibility is that some other mechanism is at work or there is a fault in the test setup. At that point the person making the claim could be wrong but not necessarily aware of it. Maybe due to a lack of knowledge.
The ammo/parts thing was more about how without domestic production there room for it to be affected by changes to import laws or sanctions.
Personally I’m not worried about using something that some other group seems to like. I want what’s practical and fits my needs. There is a reason ARs are so common today. They’re just good and can be built/modified to fit a lot of people or use cases. If I really wanted something different just to be different I’d get something like a vz 58 or some kind of space gat. It’s still kinda hard for me to justify the expense for that kind of reason and I have to rein it in a bit as I kinda want all the things.
To me it looks like an over estimation of the capabilities for the tech. Same kind of thinking that led to lawyers submitting fake cases as support in court. The current tech can be useful but has to be verified and generally tweaked a bit to be good enough. It certainly has room for improvement in quality and just not lying. Real world use has some copyright questions with what the training data was. Applying it to something creative is questionable and more or less feels like uninspired remixes.
Also the whole graphic is kinda suspect to me when “Blockchain engineers” is a job category and it’s produced by an org working on AI.
That’s exactly what it originally said. This is a repost of the edit I saw a year or two ago.
Lol, clean your guns if you’re getting jams. (The idea about jams is mostly a myth based on military personnel being told they didn’t need to maintain early designs while fighting in a jungle.)
If you prefer AKs that’s fine. It’s also fine to own both but I think in the US an AR is more practical for most people if they can’t afford both. There are also weird designs mixing the two or having one chambered in the others caliber.
In the US an AR is generally more affordable and more available. Parts and ammo for it also has more standardization and domestic production. In general it would be easier for most people to work on ARs. In other parts of the world an AK would be more common so more recommendable in my opinion. And the low end offerings there would be better than the low end offers on the US market. Where as you can still get a mostly decent AR for $600 in the US. If I got an AK I’d want to spend notably more than that to actually trust it.
If you’re expecting 100 hour plus experiences in open worlds or detailed campaigns like AAA titles for $30-60 then there aren’t that many. There are still good titles. Might want to check out steam and see what’s popular in their VR section. Maybe see what has longer play times if that is what you’re interested in.
I have music or whatever it’s called now because I music and red together where the same price as just red. I still have it because I use YouTube more than streaming services like Netflix and don’t mind supporting creators I’m watching. I use some of the features of premium on the app on my phone and fire stick too which could be worked around but would be a hassle.
For a vast majority of people who mainly view YouTube as a free service I highly doubt they’d be willing to pay $7 a month let alone $14. A large portion of their viewer base is kids and they aren’t going to pay. Maybe if they add stickers or whatever TikTok is going nuts over as part of the monthly sub.
Basic safety rules can easily be found online, videos with YouTube. What you might teach a kid to do with a found gun depends on the age and context. And finding a random gun is different than gun safety at the range.
There are other resources like Eddie Eagle. The basic idea is to tell the kid not to touch it, leave the area, and tell an adult.
The footage of the kids finding hidden guns could be a good PSA for parents. Maybe hand out coupons for safes while we’re at it.
Those who make the decision still have a full blown office with real walls and a door so won’t be negatively affected. It’s mostly pushed because the open office idea is cheaper and allows managers to see butts in seats. Studies show it’s a bad idea but people talk about collaboration and whatnot as an excuse.
My original statement was that owning a lot of guns wasn’t suggestive of anything. The comment suggested there was a “correlation” with owning guns and domestic violence in response.